Pope Francis slams 'hypocritical Catholics'; Sara Duterte slams CBCP's Soc Villegas for hypocrisy

Pope Francis to priests and lay people:

"It is better to be an atheist than one of many Catholics who lead a hypocritical double life."

"Some of these people should also say "'my life is not Christian, I don't pay my employees proper salaries, I exploit people, I do dirty business, I launder money, (I lead) a double life'."

He has condemned sexual abuse of children by priests as being tantamount to a "Satanic Mass", said Catholics in the mafia excommunicate themselves, and told his own cardinals to not act as if they were "princes".

Sara to CBCP's Villegas: 

"Since 1986 and until seven months ago, I remember that our nation has been hounded by corruption, crime, territorial war of gangs and druglords, extrajudicial killings, narco politics, terrorism, protracted rebellion, abuse of power in government, political bickering and the entry of foreign mafias."

"Your group is sadly a bunch of delusional hypocrites. While all of you were up there riding high on your horses, you failed to notice that many of us down here empathize with what Rodrigo Duterte is saying because it is the hard truth. It is truly without the air of [hypocrisy] that we smell from your kind."

"How dare you call us pimps of the EDSA spirit and yet it is you who cannot accept what has happened to our country since 1986".

"It surely did not start when President Duterte took office. He won the presidency precisely because you ignored what was wrong with this world." 

"You preach about freedom as if you invented it, as if it is your gift to us. Let me tell you what freedom is. It is to live a life that is free from your selective moral standard. This is what the meaning of EDSA is."

Pope suggests 'better to be atheist than hypocritical Catholic'

Pope Francis kisses a baby as he leads the weekly general audience in Saint Peter's Square at the Vatican February 22, 2017. REUTERS/Max Rossi

Pope Francis delivered another criticism of some members of his own Church on Thursday, suggesting it is better to be an atheist than one of "many" Catholics who he said lead a hypocritical double life.

In improvised comments in the sermon of his private morning Mass in his residence, he said: "It is a scandal to say one thing and do another. That is a double life."

"There are those who say 'I am very Catholic, I always go to Mass, I belong to this and that association'," the head of the 1.2 billion-member Roman Catholic Church said, according to a Vatican Radio transcript.

He said that some of these people should also say "'my life is not Christian, I don't pay my employees proper salaries, I exploit people, I do dirty business, I launder money, (I lead) a double life'."

"There are many Catholics who are like this and they cause scandal," he said. "How many times have we all heard people say 'if that person is a Catholic, it is better to be an atheist'."

Since his election in 2013, Francis has often told Catholics, both priests and lay people, to practice what their religion preaches.

In his often impromptu sermons, he has condemned sexual abuse of children by priests as being tantamount to a "Satanic Mass", said Catholics in the mafia excommunicate themselves, and told his own cardinals to not act as if they were "princes".

Less than two months after his election, he said Christians should see atheists as good people if they do good. - Reuters

Sara Duterte to CBCP’s Villegas: Dad knows spirit of EDSA more than you do; bunch of delusional hypocrites

Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte lambasted Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) president Archbishop Socrates Villegas following the latter's rant against the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte in a letter to the late Jaime Cardinal Sin.  

Sara Duterte, Mayor of Davao City and President Duterte's daughter.

Sara Duterte's Statement:

I recently read a letter to the late Cardinal Sin by Archbishop Soc Villegas and I was so disturbed by the rant that I decided take out my pen from retirement and practice once again the only talent that I have, writing.

On the evening of February 25, 1986, I was playing in dreamland when my father interrupted my slumber and told me to get dressed because we have to go downtown.

While we were huddled in the car, he told us, "Timan-i ninyo ning gabhiona ni. Ayaw ninyo kalimti."

I have a memory of myself standing on the stairs of the San Pedro church bell tower, listening to the incessant ringing of the bells. I did not understand what was happening, but I surmised that it must be something very important because my father had to get me out of bed to watch cheering and partying adults on the streets.

Fast forward to 2017 and I would now say that the celebration of the 1986 EDSA revolution is important but only to commemorate what we did for our country on a certain period in our history.

I find it hard to understand why this bloodless revolution has become the standard definition of freedom for our country and this standard is forced down our throats by a certain group of individuals who think they are better than everyone else. These are the elite and their friends, including Archbishop Villegas.

Oh, dear Archbishop. How dare you say that my father has singlehandedly defaced the memory of the EDSA revolution.

Since 1986 and until seven months ago, I remember that our nation has been hounded by corruption, crime, territorial war of gangs and druglords, extrajudicial killings, narco politics, terrorism, protracted rebellion, abuse of power in government, political bickering and the entry of foreign mafias.

It surely did not start when President Duterte took office.

He won the Presidency precisely because you ignored what was wrong with this world. All you desired was to put into power a leader who walks and talks like you -- someone who is definitely not Rodrigo Duterte.

When your friend failed as a President, I cannot remember you calling it the rape of EDSA. You just swept it under your glitzy rugs and you moved on, back to business -- back to acting as if you can save us all from hell.

Your group is sadly a bunch of delusional hypocrites. While all of you were up there riding high on your horses, you failed to notice that many of us down here empathize with what Rodrigo Duterte is saying because it is the hard truth. It is truly without the air of hyprocrisy that we smell from your kind.

How dare you call us pimps of the EDSA spirit and yet it is you who cannot accept what has happened to our country since 1986.

How dare you say that we are trying to prostitute the meaning of EDSA.

My father perfectly understood what the spirit of EDSA is, otherwise, he would not have told me to never forget that night of 31 years ago. And I now believe that he understands it better than you do.

You preach about freedom as if you invented it, as if it is your gift to us. Let me tell you what freedom is. It is to live a life that is free from your selective moral standard. This is what the meaning of EDSA is.

Unfortunately for you Archbishop Villegas, this is not a biased commentary on your letter to the dead because I am not a fan of President Duterte.

But you are truly, madly, deeply worse than a hundred President Dutertes. - @indaysara

Cockfighting arena in Boac hosts image of Divine Mercy. 'Onli in PH' daw

Divine Mercy in a cockfighting arena? Only in PH

Bishop Marcelino Anthony Maralit of Boac (center) speaks in a press conference at the sidelines of the 4th World Apostolic Congress on Mercy at the National Shrine of Saint Padre Pio in Sto. Tomas, Batangas, Jan. 18, 2017. (Photo: Roy Lagarde)

STO. TOMAS, Batangas, Jan. 18, 2017 —  As if to prove there’s no place Jesus is not welcome, a bishop reveals how an image of the Divine Mercy ended up in a cockfighting arena in Marinduque.

Bishop Marcelino Antonio Maralit of Boac said he authorized the putting of an image of the Divine Mercy inside a cockfighting arena in Boac with the intention of spreading the devotion.

He said the idea came from the owner of the arena who happens to be a devotee, hoping the initiative will encourage cockfighting gamblers to start thinking about giving up their vice.

“I believe it is only the diocese in the Philippines where the Divine Mercy is being promoted in a cockfighting arena,” said Maralit.

And when the clock strikes at 3:00 p.m., the cockfight players utter the short prayer to the Divine Mercy.

“Everyday they pray,” shared the prelate.

“Then I told her that I pray someday she will close that arena. But for this moment, I pray that she will first help me convert all those who come and gamble there,” he added.

The prelate was among those who gave testimonies during the third day of the 4th World Apostolic Congress on Mercy (WACOM) held at the National Shrine of the Divine Mercy in Sto. Tomas, Batangas on Wednesday.

In a press conference following his talk, the prelate said all human beings are sinners “but one can change”.

His voice cracking with emotion, he said: “We cannot judge people until the end. We cannot measure people and we cannot measure how people would be because we also need change in our lives.”

“Life is that place where God gives us mercy,” he added. (CBCPNews) 

Miracle of Lipa: Archbishop Takes Sharp Issue With Vatican Over Lipa

Pope Francis venerates Our Lady Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace
in most reccent Philippine visit, January 2014 

The archbishop who last year approved apparitions of Mary in the Filipino area known as Lipa to a Carmelite nun in the 1940s -- an approval that has now been "nullified" by a Vatican Congregation -- told Spirit Daily Monday (6/7/16) that he maintains belief in the apparitions, has a personal devotion to it, has had no direct communication with the Cardinal, Gerhard Muller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who nixed it, and may appeal directly to the Pope, whom he does not believe is aware of Cardinal Muller's action.

The archbishop, Ramon C. Arguelles of Lipa [left], had declared the apparitions "worthy of belief" on September 12, 2015, and stated that the events were indeed supernatural, strongly encouraging devotion to "Our Lady, Mediatrix of Grace," as she called herself there. As we reported at the time, "Unless overturned by Rome, the apparition is thus 'Church-approved.'"

That reversal occurred on December 11, 2015 -- though Archbishop Arguelles was not made aware of it until two weeks ago.

The archbishop says a bishop in the Philippines Conference of Bishops informed him on May 28 that the Congregation had nullified his approval and that he had received the official document on May 31 from the nation's papal nunciature in Manila. (We strictly abide by such determinations.)

Archbishop Arguelles with the image of  Our Lady, Maediatrix of All Grce in Lipa

Asked if he had yet responded to the surprising nullification, the archbishop said, "No, because I was sent nothing directly," but added he may attempt to take the issue up with the Holy Father "if I can reach him." The Vatican document argued that a contentious negative ruling made in 1951 against the apparitions held sway because it was "confirmed" by the Holy Father, at the time was Pius XII.

For more than half a century now, the matter has been the focus of terrific dispute, with four of the six bishops involved with the original negative document in 1951 later recanting (and despite what they signed, expressing belief in the apparitions) and Cardinal Santos of Manila authorizing promulgation of the devotion. Arguelles says two Filipino bishops outright ignored the commission's negative ruling, allowing faithful to continue visiting the shrine.

The vine where the Lady appeared

The alleged repression in the 1950s was also orchestrated by the papal nuncio in Manila, at whose direction the committee of Filipino bishops had been convened, hastily concluding that the Lipa events were not of a supernatural nature, their own verdict signed without interviewing the visionary, who was sequestered at a different convent and forbidden, as were the other nuns, to speak of the happenings, which began in 1948. While the committee of bishops appeared unanimous in their conclusion that Lipa was fraudulent, there were the several who confessed before they died that they too had been coerced, signing the negative "findings" only under threat of excommunication.

Bust of the Bishop Alfredo Verzosa, Bishop of Lipa in 1948

The dissension included claims that diaries kept by the seer-nun, Sister Teresita Castillo, and boxes of other material were ordered burned by those who opposed the apparition and that allegedly miraculous rose petals were discarded. A statue representing the Virgin of Lipa (though ordered to be destroyed) was hidden instead. A bishop who had previously approved of Lipa (after a personal encounter with the rose petals) was unceremoniously stripped of his administrative powers (ostensibly for "poor  accounting practices"), and  his equally favorable auxiliary bishop removed and banished to a different diocese.

It was further alleged but never proved that Church interrogators tried to intimidate the alleged visionary into signing a false confession, a statement saying the apparitions were a fabrication intended to bring her personal attention, and when the befuddled young postulant found the strength to refuse, she was confronted by an angry psychologist/priest who made motions as if ready to throw an ashtray at her.

Meanwhile the prioress of the Carmel convent there, Mother Mary Cecilia of Jesus, who supported the apparitions, was transferred to another convent and given the role of a scullery maid. "I told them that four bishops quoted [in the 1951 committee] had made notarized declarations that they believed in manifestation of Lipa," argues Archbishop Arguelles. "I had asked for documents on the investigation but several of the six were not bishops before 1950. Four died believing and even the Cardinal, in 1963 -- twelve years after ban -- had signed a document that allowed printing and spread [of the devotion], so that means he also believed. That's why I am now asking how it can really said that the declaration of 1951 could be the official stand of the Holy See. The four bishops encouraged support."

Still, the current Vatican ruling holds sway and must be obeyed. The Congregation is the Vatican body with authority over mystical claims. Its determinations can be reversed only by the Holy Father, who has been silent on the issue.

Sister Teresita Castillo, the 1948 visionary

There have long been questions about Lipa. While the original rose petals that were said to have materialized in the air there and fallen to the ground, with holy images on them, appeared inexplicable, some have raised skepticism of many others who in the apparition's wake claimed the same phenomenon. Moreover. Sister Teresita's experiences began not with the Virgin but with an attack by what apparently was an evil force that banged on her door and carried the smell of sulfur.

Those who support such happenings argue that the devil often attacks when he knows the Blessed Mother is about to appear, in an attempt to dilute it or divert attention. On the other side are those who fret that a deceiving spirit counterfeits Mary.

Archbishop Arguelles, who has visited Lipa since childhood, and says he has himself seen miracles occur there and is skeptical that Pius XII was involved in the original Lipa ruling. "I don't think that in 1951, Pope Pius XII was even thinking of what was happening in such a small country as the Philippines with so many things were happening in the world," he argues, adding that the Pope was favorable toward such mysticism. "He approved an apparition in 1954 in Italy and also Our Lady of All Nations was also approved by Pius XII, as was a weeping statue and in Syracuse [Sicily]," he told Spirit Daily in a lengthy interview.

He also argues that there was an approval of Lipa in 1992, when the late Archbishop Mariano Gaviola lifted the ban enforced forty years earlier by the then Lipa Apostolic Administrator Bishop Rufino Santos. "I was just repeating and following the decree of 1992," Arguelles maintains.

Rose petal with religious images

In 2010, however -- to make matters still more convoluted -- the Vatican "affirmed" that the apparitions were "not supernatural": that unusual forces had been "excluded. This was under Benedict XVI.

The Lipa archbishop has conceded that the latest ruling by Cardinal Muller [left], who also has indicated opposition to Medjugorje, holds sway and as a matter of "obedience" released what he was given by the nuncio on May 31. "I did not respond and I have no intention," he says. "The document was not addressed to me but was meant for me and implied I was disobedient and I am not disobedient. I think there is a lot of antagonism to whatever is Marian and I am very hurt by that. I don't know if the Holy Father Pope Francis knows about this. I think this is completely contrary to what he believes."

When asked if he would halt people from visiting the shrine, Archbishop Arguelles said, "No, no not at all. You don't stop people from believing and loving the Blessed Mother. No, no, no. They can tell me to keep silence, but they cannot force me to say it's not true, as one bishop of Lipa once said." - Full story on Spirit Daily

(Related photos from various Internet sources added in this blog).

Miracle of Lipa: Rufino Cardinal Santos' turn around

Postscript to my last post, Miracle of Lipa: Where do we go from here? To the Servants of God

Prayer Card for the Lady who appeared in Lipa, Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Grace with Imprimatur dated 25 September 1963, signed by Rufino Cardinal Santos,
Photo: Our Lady Mediatrix of All Grace facebook

Rufino Cardinal Santos (1908-1973)

Archbishop of Manila

The website of the Archdiocese of Lipa lists Cardinal Santos as having been the Archbishop of Lipa from 1950-1953. Santos was appointed Archbishop of Manila On February 1953. He was elevated to the cardinalate in March 1960, becoming the first Filipino Cardinal.

Santos, as Apostolic Administrator of Lipa was a signatory, together with five other bishops, to the unfavorable decree of April 11, 1951. The day after, on April 12, 1951 Santos issued a decree banning public veneration of the image of Our Lady Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace. 

Not being aware of the existence of any Supreme Pontiff approval of the unfavorable decree, Santos' decree contained the phrase 'until final decision on the matter will come from the Holy See'.

On 25 September 1963, Cardinal Santos, Archbishop of Manila by then, surprisingly released a prayer card for devotion to Our Lady, Mary Mediatrix of All Grace with his Imprimatur.

It contained the image of the statue once venerated in Lipa before the ban. Fact is, it was only in 1992, when the late Archbishop Mariano Gaviola lifted the ban enforced forty years earlier by the same person, then Lipa Apostolic Administrator, Bishop Rufino Santos.

In an article that appeared in CBCP news Mariologist Marwil N. Llasos stated the following in an interview: "From sources close to the late Cardinal and the family of Sr. Teresing, the Cardinal personally believed in the apparitions. Otherwise, he would not have granted the Imprimatur and kept a rose petal from Lipa until the end of his life."

Miracle of Lipa: Where do we go from here? To the Servants of God

"In cases which concern private revelations, it is better to believe than not to believe, for, if you believe, and it is proven true, you will be happy that you have believed, because our Holy Mother asked it. If you believe, and it should be proven false, you will receive all blessings as if it had been true, because you believed it to be true."(Pope Urban VIII, 1623-44)

Monastery of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel of Mary Mediatrix of All Grace. 

Photo: Christian Lucas Sangoyo

The Miracle of Lipa is probably the most fascinating of all the Marian apparition stories that ever was told and retold in the Philippines. A well-documented phenomenon that took place in September 1948 in the town of Lipa in Batangas, one of most ravaged during World War II, the story involved Carmelite nuns and sisters, one of whom was the principal visionary, Teresita Castillo, then the Catholic hierarchy in the Philippines, the religious people of Batangas and those beyond the province, joined in later by writers, actors, government officials and their wives, the plain curious and the Apostolic Nuncio.

More fascinating is the fact that nearly 70 years have passed, yet both the Vatican and the Catholic hierarchy from day one of the apparition have apparently been divided among themselves, or so it appears, on these apparitions.

Today, we learn that this case of personal revelations, in spite of their supernatural character that also included showers of rose petals, some of which bore religious images as witnessed by hundreds, or thousands of people altogether for a period of time, a special commission of bishops dismissed this mystical episode in 1951 through a one-paragraph statement ruling that "the evidence and testimonies exclude any supernatural interventions". This was to be reversed by another Bishop of Lipa, Mariano Gaviola, after 40 years, and reiterated through a 2015 decree issued by the present Archbishop of Lipa (Arguelles), only to be declared null and void shortly thereafter by the Vatican’s Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith (CDF), in view of a “definitive” conclusion made in 1951, purportedly approved by the Supreme Pontiff during that time.

Almost nothing of the records of the apparition remains today, such as diaries, personal writings, and all related materials like rose petals and the statue of the Virgin Mary that were ordered burned and destroyed in those days when all discussions or studies of the case were likewise suppressed. But the Carmelite nuns of Lipa just hid the statue away from view as they just could not bring themselves to destroy it. Others who in their hearts believed in the apparitions and the shower of rose petals just kept their strong faith and quietly propagated the same over the years.

Could it be possible that for reasons we might never know, but only those behind the suppression of the events in Lipa knew first-hand, that those concerned were, indeed, just too quick in affixing their signatures to that 1951 one-paragraph decree? "Under duress", some claimed, lest they faced excommunication as various accounts also would reveal.

It is even more curious that on record, not one of the signatories ever talked with any of the persons directly involved with or were witnesses to the apparitions that even included the two bishops of Lipa at that time.

Interior of the Church. Photo: Christian Lucas Sangoyo

Imprimatur

It is quite significant that one of the earliest records that has survived after the suppression was a copy of a narrative with an Imprimatur signed by Bishop Alfredo Versoza, Archbishop of Lipa from 1916 to 1951, written by Mother Mary Cecilia, Superior of Carmel in Lipa. This written account was dated December 6, 1948,  three months after the reported apparitions.

Could it be that for whatever reason, those concerned, when they were compelled by untold circumstances to say something simply forgot, or just ignored the processes or norms applying to the discernment of such personal revelation or alleged apparition cases, and just went ahead declaring the apparitions and the shower of roses not to be supernatural? An act the truth of which in God’s own time, perhaps in our lifetime, shall be revealed anyway? 

What’s going on today may just be part of a new and deeper revelation process 

"For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open." (Luke 8:17)

Site of the apparition of Our Lady Mediatrix of All Grace. 
Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Private revelations

"In cases which concern private revelations, it is better to believe than not to believe, for, if you believe, and it is proven true, you will be happy that you have believed, because our Holy Mother asked it. If you believe, and it should be proven false, you will receive all blessings as if it had been true, because you believed it to be true."(Pope Urban VIII, 1623-44)

"If it proves to be false”? By whose judgment will prove it to be false then? By the local Bishop who governs the local church in question concerning apparitions in his diocese. By the local Bishop of the visionary Sr. Teresita Castillo, of the Mother Superior, Mother Cecilia of Jesus, of the other Carmelite sisters – and him only.

Who was that local Bishop of the visionary?  Bishop Alfredo Verzosa, the Bishop of Lipa in 1948.

Pope Leo XII. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Encyclical "Stais comnitum" of Leo XII-1896 (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott, Page 289):

"This power of the Pope in no way derogates from the ordinary and immediate power of Episcopal jurisdiction by which bishops, who have been sent by the Holy Spirit to succeed and take the place of the Apostles, feed and govern each his own flock as true pastors; but rather, this authority is asserted, strengthened and vindicated by the Supreme and Universal Pastor."

According to this declaration the Episcopal power is as follows:

"An ordinary power, that is, it is associated with the Episcopal office; an immediate power, that is it is not practiced at the order of a superior, but in the bishop's own name. Thus bishops are not delegated (agents) and so are not vicars (representatives) of the pope, but they are independent pastors of the flocks entrusted to them, even though they are subordinate to the pope. A power appointed by God for the Apostles (on the ground of divine ordinance, whether in the immediate commission of Christ, or on the direction of the Holy Spirit --- Acts 20, 26) have passed on their pastoral office to the bishops. The bishops are the successors of the Apostles, not in such a manner that an individual bishop is a successor of an individual Apostle, but that the bishops in their totality are successors of the College of Apostles.

"This is a true pastoral power, as it embraces all the ecclesiastical powers to the exercise of the office, the power to legislate, to judge and to punish. It is a power which is limited locally and materially, since it extends only to a definite segment of the Church, and is circumscribed by the Papal power which is superior to it. Matters of causae maiores (universal importance), touching the welfare of the whole Church, are reserved to the Holy Fathers." (Dr. Ott)

So it goes without saying that in matters of private revelation, the Vatican never ever has changed the decision of a local Bishop, and never will, because Bishops do not get their authority from the Pope on such matters, but directly from the Apostles. 

Has the Vatican ever officially approved a private revelation such as Fatima? Not the Vatican but the ordinary Bishop. Consider this statement from Miracle Hunter:

As established in the Council of Trent (1545-63), the local bishop is the first and main authority in the judgement of the authenticity of apparition claims. Vatican approval is not required for an apparition to be considered authentic. After an episcopal approval, the Vatican may do nothing but it may release an official statement or after some time give non-written forms of approval such as a papal visit with the crowning of the associated icon or a gift such as a golden rose, the approval of the construction of (or elevation of an existing shrine to) a basilica, the establishment of a feast day, or the canonization of the associated visionary.

Positive judgments by the local bishop (but not yet by the Vatican) theoretically are able to be reversed by a subsequent bishop - but this has never happened in the history of the Church. Negative judgments (Constat de non supernaturalitate) and rulings of no evidence of supernaturality (Non constat de supernaturalitate) have later been changed to positive judgments on a few rare occasions with the ruling of a subsequent bishop.

If a Marian apparition is recognized by the bishop, it means that the message is not contrary to faith and morals, that Mary can be venerated in a special way at the site and that the faithful can believe with confidence in the supernaturality of the event. But, because belief in a private revelation is not required by the church, Catholics are at liberty to decide how much personal spiritual emphasis (if any) to place on apparitions and the messages they deliver.

 And so, who was it that reversed the Verzosa Imprimatur by making a negative judgment and ruled that there was ‘no evidence of supernaturality’ in the Miracle of Lipa? The Special Commission of Bishops formed by the Catholic hierarchy in 1951, whose decree was merely certified as original ("Concordat cum originali") by the Apostolic Nuncio.

This decree, dated 11 April 1951 and signed by Manila Archbishop Gabriel M. Reyes, Bishop Mariano Madriaga of Lingayen, Bishop Cesar M. Guerrero of San Fernando, Auxiliary Bishop Juan Sison of Nueva Segovia, Auxiliary Bishop Vicente Reyes of Manila and Lipa Apostolic Administrator Rufino Santos stated in one paragraph that the members of the special commission “have attentively examined and reviewed the evidence and testimonies in the course of repeated, long, and careful examinations, have reached the unanimous conclusion and hereby officially declare that the above mentioned evidence and testimonies exclude any supernatural intervention in the reported extraordinary happenings – including the shower of petals at the Carmel of Lipa.”

As could be seen by just reading the decree, no reference was made at all to Versoza’s official Imprimatur of 1948. It could only be deduced that, in those days, the Bishops’ decree was presented by the Catholic hierarchy as the one and only official document on the apparitions - "including the shower of petals". That said, and assuming they are not aware of the Verzosa-approved document of 1948, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) of the Holy See did no wrong in merely sustaining the Special Commission’s ruling.

By releasing a new CDF decree dated 11 December 2015, received only recently on 30 May 2016 by the Archbishop of Lipa, Ramon Arguelles, stating that “the declaration of 1951 was a decision confirmed by the Supreme Pontiff and therefore definitive” this new claim must, however, be subject to proof by CDF to be fair and square to Filipino Catholics including myself of the generation that came after 1951, and for all future generations of the Catholic faith in the Philippines and the world to see. 

With certainty, no one in the Catholic hierarchy could claim knowledge or awareness of such a Supreme Pontiff confirmation of the said decree.

Archbishop Ramon Arguelles of the Archdiocese of Lipa
Photo: Andrea Adriano

CDF states further that “the phenomenon of Lipa is not subject to the authority of the local Diocesan Bishop (cf. CIC can 333)”.

“CIC can 333” is about the Pope enjoying “ordinary power” that is supreme, full, immediate and universal in the Church - “immediate” as “such a primatial power can be exercised by the pope directly, without intervention, on all of the faithful and on all the particular Churches, even if in arrangement with the latter the immediacy of papal authority tend to reinforce and guarantee the proper, ordinary and immediate power of their bishops”. 

There is no indication whatsoever that this “immediate” power was exercised at all by the Supreme Pontiff in this particular instance. 

The CDF decree also states that: “The authority on which this declaration was made was not that of the Bishop members of the Special Commission, but rather of the Supreme Pontiff." 

So here I again quote an earlier post by Fr. Paul Kramer on the online page of TradCatKnight: “It is standard procedure to note the approval of a higher authority on the decree itself. Such a notation is nowhere to be found on the decree April 1951; and it is inconceivable that Pius XII issued some other decree confirming the 11/04/1951 decree on Lipa, since such a decree is totally unknown to ever have existed.” This will inevitably imply that the authority of the Pope on which the declaration was made also never existed.

Only last year in the Philippines, on 17 January 2015, Pope Francis was seen making a sign of the Cross before a replica image of Our Lady Mediatrix of All Grace at the Archbishop's residence in Palo, Leyte as he was visiting the victims of Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan). 

Also in photo is Palo Archbishop John Du. 

So where do we go from here?

Two eminent bishops who governed the Diocese of Lipa until 1951, namely, Alfredo Verzosa and Alfredo Ma. Obviar have long departed from this Earth and could no longer be reached for comment by us mortals. That the good bishops totally complied with the order of the Church to keep their silence on the apparitions meant they could never have been expected, as loyal servants of the Church, to even defend themselves or their belief on the apparitions. They’d probably rather spend the rest of their lives spreading the teachings of the Church, and serving humanity their own prayerful and humble way – as both of them had done. 

In God’s own time the truth will come out anyway, we could almost hear them utter in total surrender.

Those whose lives they had touched and inspired, and eventually left behind, are however, doing their part. These two great Bishops’ cause for sainthood are prayed for by a multitude today, and, remarkably, their road to holiness has nothing to do with the Miracle of Lipa at all, but with the kind of lives they separately lived in those days before and after the war.

Copy of the book, "Alfredo Verzosa, Obispo" is presented to Pope Francis
in Rome by Archbishop Emeritus of Nueva Segovia, Ernesto Salgado (2014).
Photo: Bishop Alfredo F. Verzosa facebook

The current status of the two Bishops: Servants of God 

Servant of God (Latin: Servus Dei) is a title given to individuals by various religions, and in general it is a person believed to be pious in his or her faith tradition. In the Catholic Church, it designates someone who is being investigated by the Church for possible canonization into sainthood. Currently there are only 17 Filipinos who have been given this title, the same title that two other Filipinos, St. Lorenzo Ruiz and St. Pedro Calungsod once held.

Servant of God Alfredo Verzosa, Bishop of Lipa; Founder of the Missionary Catechists of the Sacred Heart

Born: December 9, 1877 - Vigan, Ilocos Sur, Philippines

Died: June 27, 1954 - Vigan, Ilocos Sur, Philippines

Nihil Obstat: 2014 (Nothing stands on the way)

As a young priest, Verzosa assigned to Nueva Segovia, worked hard to protect, revive and strengthen Catholicism in Ilocos Norte at a time when there was a dearth of priests due to the shift of most of the local clergy to the new church (IFI) established by Gregorio Aglipay.

Verzosa was appointed as a consultor in the Synod of Nueva Segovia and worked as secretary of the bishops during their pastoral visits.

In 1916, Pope Benedict XV named Verzosa, then 39, the second bishop of Lipa, the fourth Filipino to be elevated to the bishopric.

He was the first Filipino Catholic bishop to hail from the Ilocos region. He became Bishop of Lipa on January 20, 1917.

He founded the Missionary Catechists of the Sacred Heart, a diocesan congregation for women in 1923.

Verzosa as the local Bishop of Lipa allowed the apparitions of Lipa to be publicized and for the Mediatrix to be venerated.

Though he had used his family’s wealth to rebuild the churches and schools of war-torn Lipa, he was falsely accused of mishandling the war reparations and finances of the diocese. He lived in exile at his Vigan home, reduced to rolling tobacco leaves to augment the family income.

Verzosa died in his home city on June 27, 1954.

Fr. Ericson Josue, a priest from the diocese of Laoag and a professor of Theology at the Vigan Seminary published the book “Alfredo Versoza, Obispo: The Life and Legacy of the Fourth Filipino Roman Catholic Bishop” in 2007.

Servant of God Alfredo Maria Aranda Obviar, Bishop of Lucena; Founder of the Missionary Catechists of Saint Therese of the Infant Jesus

Born: August 29, 1889 - Lipa, Batangas, Philippines

Died: October 1, 1978 - Tayabas, Quezon, Philippines

Nihil Obstat: March 6, 2001 (Nothing stands on the way)

Obviar was Bishop of Lucena and founder of the Missionary Catechists of Saint Therese of the Infant Jesus Born on August 29, 1889 in Mataas na Lupa, Lipa City, Batangas.

The first auxiliary bishop of Lipa, he, together with Bishop Alfredo Verzosa, personally believed in the authenticity of the apparition of Our Lady Mary Mediatrix of All Grace in the Carmelite Convent of Lipa to Teresing Castillo, a Carmelite postulant.

After an unfavorable pronouncement on the apparitions by the Episcopal Heirarchy of that time, Monsignor Verzosa and Monsignor Obviar were relieved of their posts. Monsignor Verzosa was retired to Vigan, his birthplace while Monsignor Obviar was made Apostolic Administrator of the newly created Diocese of Lucena. They humbly submitted to the orders of the Church and kept the seal of perpetual silence about the apparitions. He died on October 1, 1978, the feast of his patron saint Therese of the Child Jesus, patroness of the congregation he founded.

Bishop Obviar is the first Filipino cleric and bishop candidate for beatification. He became Servant of God on March 6, 2001.

Miracle of Lipa: Communique from Archbishop Arguelles, other questions

Released by Archbishop Romeo Arguelles of the Archdiocese of Lipa was this Communique dated May 31, 2016. It contains the concluding lines of a "four and one-fourth page, sixteen paragraphs, document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith headlined: PROT. N. 226/1949 PRESUMED APPARITIONS OF THE BVM AT THE CARMELITE CONVENT IN LIPA, PHILIPPINES", dated Rome, December 11, 2015, the official copy of which was received by Arguelles on May 30, 2016.

The CDF decree states in part thus:

"...that in the light of the fact that the declaration of 1951 was a decision confirmed by the Supreme Pontiff and therefore definitive, consequently, the matter of the phenomenon of Lipa is not subject to the authority of the local Diocesan Bishop (cf. CIC can 333). Therefore the decree of Archbishop Arguelles dated 15 September 2015 is null and void.

"Furthermore, this Congregation confirms the definitive nature of the 11 April 1951 decree by which the phenomena of Lipa were declared to lack supernatural origin.

"The authority on which this declaration was made not that of the Bishop members of the Special Commission, but rather of the Supreme Pontiff."

On an online post in TradCatKnight, the most read traditional Catholic page, Fr. Paul Kramer, lecturer and author of numerous articles and books on the Catholic Faith and on the subject of Fatima states:

According to Canon Law, if there appears on a decree of the Holy Office such words as, "with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff"; or "after consultation with the Supreme Pontiff", then the decree has the authority of a papal act. If a diocesan decree has such a phrase as "after consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" (as is the case with the Declaration of the Diocese of Brooklyn on the alleged apparitions of Bayside); or "with the approval of the CDF", then the decree has the force of a Roman curial act.

There is no such clause on the April 11, 1951 decree.

If Pius XII whispered his "definitive confirmation", or wrote it, signed it and put it in a drawer -- but it was not noted on the decree, then the decree has no force beyond its own face value, and the alleged "definitive confirmation" would be utterly bereft of any juridical force whatsoever.

The onus is on the CDF to produce the evidence of the alleged confirmation, otherwise the claim must be dismissed by the CBCP as apocryphal. It is standard procedure to note the approval of a higher authority on the decree itself. Such a notation is nowhere to be found on the decree April 1951; and it is inconceivable that Pius XII issued some other decree confirming the 11/04/1951 decree on Lipa, since such a decree is totally unknown to ever have existed, and unless duly promulgated, it would remain bereft of all juridical force.

Whoever it was in the CDF who claimed that Pius XII made a "definitive confirmation in 1951", and "declared they were not of supernatural origin", must have studied Canon Law at the Alice in Wonderland Institute; or else has perpetrated a deliberate act of fraud in order to deceive the Catholic hierarchy and faithful of the Philippines.

What could be behind all these? TradCatKnight makes a plain but revealing statement:

There are many in the Vatican who hate the true message of Fatima (real 3rd secret of Apostasy) because the Vatican is entrenched with Modernists, Masons and Marxists all trying to finalize their One World Religion.

Also read:

Miracle of Lipa: Vatican's CDF decree an act of fraud to deceive Filipino Catholics?